Forum Replies Created
I am surprised you are not familiar with these arguments, unless my wording was confusing. I know you’ll disagree with some of it, but here is Scott Sumner giving what he calls a libertarian, non-Austrian take on it.
I agree there is a burden (inefficiency/deadweight loss) because of government spending made possible by borrowing, ignored by Krugman. But that is in addition to what people mainly mean by the burden, which is the actual amount of the debt. In the case of default, then the bondholder would bear the burden.
Actually, I was thinking perhaps it is correct to say the burden is limited to that inefficiency and is borne by present generations, but only because the government can continually roll over the debt. The government is always taxing, of course, but for the foreseeable future it is also able to borrow to pay current bondholders. So you have more people voluntarily purchasing bonds (creating that additional inefficiency due to government using resources). Until there is some kind of end game with the debt, is that burden postponed? Is that consistent with what you’re saying?
I agree with you, but I don’t think it’s correct to say “Future generations do not pay for state borrowing.” Someone in those future generations is bearing the burden, it’s just that part of it is a (coerced) transfer within the private sector. By aggregating the private sector, you’re giving the Krugman argument of “we owe it to ourselves”
A lot of economists (including libertarian ones) do not agree with Jeff Herbener on this. In short, with borrowing today, people buy bonds willingly (of course, there may be deadweight loss, but that’s an additional burden). In the future, someone is being taxed, which obviously is not voluntary, so that’s where the burden is.
Meaning you may not evaluate the Bible as a source the way would another document, because your faith tells you it is a reliable source.